The human race is solitary and indistinguishable with itself commencing its starting point up to the present; it will be so awaiting the conclusion. Its faculties are in no way consecutive. That which it is, it has forever been and will for eternity be the individual race does not need to unfasten itself from an substandard quintessence in order to turn out to be what it is: the development of the human race is within itself.
beliefs of legends arranges the mythology and religions of the prehistoric world
into a times gone by of religions according to the measure to which each evident the
progressive actualization of the Potencies. ‘Incomplete mythological systems’, such as
early Persian Zabism (star-worship, usually ‘Sabeism’) as well as Buddhism,38 are
Undeveloped systems manifesting only the inverted first Potency. The religions of
ancient Syria and Mesopotamia, displaying the stirring into activity of the second
Potency, characterize an key step forward in the theogonic method but stay
Incomplete. Most ancient mythologies and religions, in seceral interpretations,
manifest the disagreement between the inverted first Potency and the second Potency. Only
the mythologies of Egypt, India and Greece, in which the third Potency emerges into
full consciousness, encompass ‘complete mythological systems’. People conceive
of ontology as the central part of mythological contemplation and, conversely, mythology, as
the tangible personification of ontology, displays the interdependence of this unenthusiastic and constructive philosophies—of, that is, this ontology and philosophy of history.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
The human race is solitary and indistinguishable with itself commencing its starting point up to the present; it will be so awaiting the conclusion. Its faculties are in no way consecutive. That which it is, it has forever been and will for eternity be the individual race does not need to unfasten itself from an substandard quintessence in order to turn out to be what it is: the development of the human race is within itself.
beliefs of legends arranges the mythology and religions of the prehistoric world
into a times gone by of religions according to the measure to which each evident the
progressive actualization of the Potencies. ‘Incomplete mythological systems’, such as
early Persian Zabism (star-worship, usually ‘Sabeism’) as well as Buddhism,38 are
Undeveloped systems manifesting only the inverted first Potency. The religions of
ancient Syria and Mesopotamia, displaying the stirring into activity of the second
Potency, characterize an key step forward in the theogonic method but stay
Incomplete. Most ancient mythologies and religions, in seceral interpretations,
manifest the disagreement between the inverted first Potency and the second Potency. Only
the mythologies of Egypt, India and Greece, in which the third Potency emerges into
full consciousness, encompass ‘complete mythological systems’. People conceive
of ontology as the central part of mythological contemplation and, conversely, mythology, as
the tangible personification of ontology, displays the interdependence of this unenthusiastic and constructive philosophies—of, that is, this ontology and philosophy of history. |
Is this a discussion about Shcellings theory of Potencies? It's all based on his interpretation of world mythologies, if this is flawed, his whole theory is flawed. As this is your topic, surely you should give us your views on this theory.The scar stays!!!!!!???
Quote "Schelling has been involved in the global warming debate since chairing a commission for President Carter in 1980. He believes climate change poses a serious threat to developing nations, but that the threat to the United States has been exaggerated. Drawing on his experience with the post-war Marshall Plan, he has argued that addressing global warming is a bargaining problem: if the world is able to reduce emissions, poor countries will receive most of the benefits but rich countries will bear most of the costs." Unquote
I am talking about religion and myth
Was there a "A man called JESUS"
Please try to understand me ???????@??????/@?????!!!!!!!!!!
Arun
The differences between Hegel and Schelling derive from their respective approaches to understanding the absolute. For Hegel the absolute is the result of the self-cancellation of the finite. It can therefore be presented in the form of the successive overcoming of finite determinations, the ‘negation of the negation’, in a system whose end comprehends its beginning. For Hegel the result becomes known when the beginning moves from being ‘in itself’ to being ‘for itself’ at the end of the system, thus in a process in which it reflects itself to itself. Schelling already becomes publicly critical of Hegel while working on a later version of the WA philosophy in Erlangen in the 1820s, but makes his criticisms fully public in lectures given in Munich in the 1830s, and in the 1840s and 1850s as professor in Berlin. The aim of the Idealist systems was for thought to reflect what it is not -- being -- as really itself, even as it appears not to be itself, thereby avoiding Kant's dualism. The issue between Schelling and Hegel is whether the grounding of reason by itself is not in fact a sort of philosophical narcissism, in which reason admires its reflection in being without being able fully to articulate its relationship to that reflection. Like Hegel, Schelling argues that it is not the particular manifestation of knowledge which tells me the truth about the world, but rather the necessity of moving from one piece of knowledge to the next. However, a logical reconstruction of the process of knowledge can, for Schelling, only be a reflection of thought by itself. The real process cannot be described in philosophy, because the cognitive ground of knowledge and the real ground, although they are inseparable from each other, cannot be shown to reflect each other.
SOURCE PLEASE CHECK THIS IS NO SPAN OR COPY RIGHT VIOLATION
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-551361/Epistemologies-of-rupture-the-problem.html
In Germany at the turn of the nineteenth century, all philosophy, and especially all philosophical criticism, began with reference to Kant's critical philosophy. In the "Preface" to his Difference essay, Hegel praised the spirit of Kantian philosophy, the speculative principle articulated in the transcendental deduction of the categories, but deprecated the "remainder"--the hypostatization of the thing-in-itself, the transformation of the categories into dead compartments of the understanding and their opposition to the empirical realm of sensation, the restriction of practical reason to what can be conceived by the understanding--all of which became fodder for reflective philosophy (Hegel, Differenz 5-6). Kant never had the opportunity to comment on the project of The Critical Journal of Philosophy, but his own critical project started from exposing the errors and contradictions of reason in its purely speculative use and arguing for its restriction to finite, empirical knowledge. Nevertheless, Kant's critical works were primarily preoccupied with the cognitive processes involved in the production of such knowledge, with the laws of reason that are the necessary conditions of possible experience, with interrogating how cognition in general is possible. Yet Kant left a problematic rupture in his critical examination of the conditions and sources of cognition, a rupture that he explicitly acknowledged and graphically represented in the "Introduction" to his 1790 Critique of Judgment as "an immense gulf [Kluft]" between the two domains of our cognitive powers, that in which understanding legislates through the concept of nature and that in which reason legislates through the concept of reason, the subjects of his first two critiques. (3) For Kant, this chasm leaves indeterminate not only how freedom was to be reconciled with the necessity of nature, but also how nature was to be comprehended as an organized system. We are left merely with reflective judgments of these relations, problematic acts of synthesis, rather than determinative judgments based upon the necessary laws of cognition. Kant also acknowledged a rupture in his attempt to determine the conditions and sources of cognition in his 1782 Critique of Pure Reason, when he referred the relation of sensory intuition and understanding to a "common," "unknown root [Wurzel]." | Quote: |
| I am talking about religion and myth |
You are? I thought you were giving a lecture.
| Quote: |
| Please try to understand me ???????@??????/@?????!!!!!!!!!! |
Oh I've been trying to.
| Quote: |
Was there a "A man called JESUS" |
I've spent so long trying to understand your posts I haven't got time to give MY OWN views tonight. | Quote: |
Was there a "A man called JESUS"
|
Myths and legends have a basis in truth, so yes, there was a man called Jesus. However the myth doen't tally with the historical facts. In this case there was, to put a modern slant to it "spin doctors" who changed the facts to suit their own ends. This started from the very begining of this myth with the posibility the wrong Bethlehem was given as his place of birth. It's been overlooked that his parents had family there so they would have stayed with them. At this time is was normal for the mother-to-be to go to a "birthing room", normally a cave which had made comfortable for the mother to give birth in a calm, quiet atmosphere. Although historians and archeologists have learnt a lot we will never know the true facts of this myth.Actually I feel that a myth is a myth with some basis of facts
fact is a fact
miracles are impossible
hence there is a possibility that jesus was a pure myth
again there is also a possibility that a man called Jeshu lived and was influential and a myth was developed around him which was cemented to suit needs of the sayer ( teller of the myth)
So goes!
But miracles don't happen
It's a bit like our myths of King Arthur, Merlin, and Talliesin to name but 3. Arthur existed but it's possible there were two Arthurs, one a warrior, I can't remember what the other one was, possibly a
chief or minor king. Merlin (Merddin) was a druid and Talliesin was a bard. The writers romancified - is that a word? them until two of them, Merlin and Arthur finshed up larger than life. One of the problems we have is the stories were passed down by word of mouth and were first written down by Christian monks who christianized a lot of what they wrote, so you really have to look deep into the stories to find the truth of them.
Miracles do happen, you just have to recognise them when you see them.
Dear Woundedhealer
Please read the following observation by John E. Remsberg in his book
The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence
SOURCE : http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg00.htm
A miracle, in the orthodox sense of the term, is impossible and incredible. To accept a miracle is to reject a demonstrated truth. The world is governed, not by chance, not by caprice, not by special providences, but by the laws of nature; and if there be one truth which the scientist and the philosopher have established, it is this: THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE IMMUTABLE. If the laws of Nature are immutable, they cannot be suspended; for if they could be suspended, even by a god, they would not be immutable. A single suspension of these laws would prove their mutability. Now these alleged miracles of Christ required a suspension of Nature's laws; and the suspension of these laws being impossible the miracles were impossible, and not performed. If these miracles were not performed, then the existence of this supernatural and miracle-performing Christ, except as a creature of the human imagination, is incredible and impossible.
Hume's masterly argument against miracles has never been refuted: "A miracle is a violation of the laws of Nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable that all men must die; that lead cannot of itself remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be that these events are found agreeable to the laws of Nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or, in other words, a miracle, to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle if it ever happens in the common course of Nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die suddenly, because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against any miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit the appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle" (Essay on Miracles).
Alluding to Christ's miracles, M. Renan, a reverential admirer of Jesus of Nazareth, says: "Observation, which has never been once falsified, teaches us that miracles never happen but in times and countries in which they are believed, and before persons disposed to believe them. No miracle ever occurred in the presence of men capable of testing its miraculous character.... It is not, then, in the name of this or that philosophy, but in the name of universal experience, that we banish miracles from history" (Life of Jesus, p. 29). I had written a whole lot here and then lost it, so I'll just make a few quick points.
With a subject like this we can provide quotes to prove or disprove anything, so I'm not going to bother quoting others. Scientists have not got all the answers, they themselves admit that and somethings which have appeared to be miracles or supernatural do have logical answers. magnets were once classed as occult (meaning hidden knowledge) now they are everyday objects. nature is not immutable, every so ofen it throws up surprises. Take the bee, according to scientists it is aerodynamically impossible for the bumble bee to fly, yet we know it does. I had a few examples of nature being changable, but I've not got time right now. There's the matter of shamans, medicine men and healers who use nature. I have a instance of a healer's work which was classed as a miracle by a doctor, but I'll have to give the details tomorrow.
This is one of my favourite topics and I'm disappointed that you are just providing quotes from others instead of having a good discussion about it.
[EDIT] A lady had an inoperative tumor and there was nothing that could be done for her. Unwilling to give up, she turned to a healer. This was a hands-on healer. 3 months later she returned to the hospital for a scan to check on the tumor, to see how much bigger it had got. They could find no tumor, it had totally gone. As a healer myself, I know such things are possible. To somebody who does not believe this type of healing is possible, it's a miracle.[/EDIT]
